"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:sh1kquci29278bi4liov0e0i9cid7410mf at 4ax.com...>> >As if though we need a jew to "interpret" what Christianity is?
>>>> We Christians certainly don't need YOU to tell us what we believe in.
>>You jew lovers haven't got a clue what Christianity even IS.
I have a better idea than you do, nincompoop. And my idea matches
what most major churches say that Christianity is.
>> >No, I'm talking about the schools that existed for almost 2,000 years
>>>> That clearly is NOT what you are talking about, since you are
>> referring to world class educational institutions that developed AFTER
>> we moved to this continent 500 years ago.
>>>> There were no educational institutions on this continent that have
>> existed for almost 2,000 years, and indeed there were no such
>> educational institutions in Europe that have existed for almost 2,000
>>Christianity IS an "educational institution", lojbab.
>But the BEST schools were the religious schools of Europe which had been
>around for centuries before the US was even conceived of.
Then why were those schools replaced?
>> The Holy Bible does NOT say that there should be three years of public
>>The Holy Bible DOES say that Christian children shall be taught
If that were true (which I doubt), it has nothing to do with
schooling. Most kids learn religion at home or in church, not in
>> Except of course that women were the vast majority of schoolteachers
>> for a lot more than the last half century. As far back as 1870, which
>> is the oldest data I can find, women were more than 60% of all
>>Which is why religious schools which have men teachers have always produced
>better students than women teachers in public schools, with the 100 SAT
>point difference being just one *small* example.
Except that religious schools ALSO have mostly female teachers.
>> >you may not even be able to
>> >remember that it was just in 1965, a mere 37 years ago, that the US had the
>> >world's highest per capita income.
>>>> I suspect this is false.
>>You really didn't know that we once had the world's highest per capita
I certainly won't believe YOU that we did.
>> >According to the federal government, our personal savings rate in 1944 was
>> >26% of disposable personal income,
>>>> Talk about lying with statistics. Personal savings was exceptionally
>> high during WW II because 1) there were shortages and hence not a lot
>> to spend things on, and 2) there was a big push for savings in the
>> form of war bonds.
>>And I repeat:
>>"According to the federal government, our personal savings rate in 1944
>was 26% of disposable personal income".
>>Your own source confirms this, so which part didn't you understand?
I understand that you are lying with statistics. If you chose 1934 or
1954 then you haven't got a case.
>> Here are the numbers
>>http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/saverate.xls>>>> 1929 4.7%
>> 1930 4.3%
>> 1931 4.0%
>> 1932 -0.8%
>> 1933 -1.5%
>> 1934 1.2%
>> 1935 4.2%
>> 1936 6.4%
>> 1937 6.2%
>> 1938 2.2%
>> 1939 4.7%
>> 1940 5.9%
>> 1941 12.4%
>> 1942 24.4%
>> 1943 25.8%
>> 1944 26.3%
>> 1945 20.6%
>> 1946 10.1%
>> 1947 4.7%
>> 1948 7.3%
>> 1949 5.2%
>> 1950 7.2%
>>>> >but was down to a NEGATIVE 8.5% by 2000
>>>> Nope. Using the same source (so that the calculation is consistent),
>> the savings rate did not actually go negative, but did go as low as
>> 0.3% in October 2001. But in August 2002 it was back up to 3.6%
>>According to this source, AND the 2002 US Statistical Abstract, and numerous
>other sources, Personal Savings in the US in 2000 was a MINUS 8.5%.
The 2002 statistical abstract isn't out yet, so far as I can tell,
>NEGATIVE 8.5% PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE IN THE US.
>>> >If you don't believe this, then look it up in the archives
>>>> That was preliminary data, which apparently turned out to be wrong.
>> The spreadsheet cited above is the most recent version of that table,
>> updated 9/30/2002.
>>So you believe Thomas Jefferson, the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ, and the US
>Statistical Abstract are "wrong", but that you "liberals" are "right"?
I believe that when you cite the Bureau of Economic Affairs (the "bea"
in the above URL), you should cite the current page, and not an
archive of a page from more than a year ago. I cited the current
page. YOU are wrong.
Neither Thomas Jefferson, the Holy Bible, nor Jesus Christ ever said
anything about the US savings rate.
>> >> Some of them were citizens since Thomas Jefferson became a citizen.
>> >So what? If three quarters of Americans decide they shouldn't be citizens,
>> >they won't be.
>>>> But that won't happen.
>>Why not? It's happened 86 times in recent history,
>it's happening right now in Russia and France,
>> >> >and the BIGGEST mistake was
>> >> >not shipping all the welfare queens back to their countries of origin.
>> >> For most of them, that country was the United States.
>> >Most niggers claim they're from Africa.
>>>> False. Most of them claim that they were born in the United States,
>> because indeed that is where they were born. Some of their ancestors
>> (but not all since most blacks have some white blood) came from
>> Africa, but Alex Haley aside, most blacks would have no idea where in
>> Africa their ancestors came from.
>>The Moors and jews were born in Spain, too, but they aren't there now, are
>Currently, 10,000 Jews live in Spain, and about 3,000 live in Catalonia.
gives 14,000 Jews in Spain, almost twice as many as there are in
>The jews were born in Russia, but that didn't give one single Russian one
>single reason to lose any sleep as they exiled the jews, did they?
They didn't. Thee latter source gives 550,000 Jews in Russia, another
400,000 in Ukraine, and over 200,000 in the other former Soviet